AN application for a judicial review by learning disabled residents of a North Yorkshire care village about a breach of their human rights has been refused.

The Administrative Court in London refused to proceed with the case involving the dismantling of the current living arrangements at Botton, in Danby Dale, by charity Camphill Village Trust, where residents live in homes with carers, known as co-workers.

The residents – Daniel Francis, Lucinda Riis-Johannessen, and Tracey Knight – claim the changes are a breach of their rights under article eight of the European Convention of Human Rights that everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence.

The honourable Mr Justice Jeremy Baker refused the application. However, both parties have interpreted this conclusion in their favour.

Helen Tucker of Anthony Collins Solicitors, the law firm appointed by Camphill Village Trust, said: “As a charity, CVT seeks to avoid legal disputes where possible.

“In this instance, the charity trustees had no option but to respond urgently to the claim brought against them.”

She added that the court decided the claim was “unarguable” as the charity had made an “evaluative decision” as to how it could most effectively meet its obligations to the learning disabled people it supports.

She said: “This came as a relief to our client and a vindication of the work being done by the charity’s staff and trustees.

“They are working hard to ensure the charity meets all regulatory requirements in a way that meets the needs of the people it works with.”

However, a spokeswoman for the Botton residents said: “The court has in fact confirmed that the learning disabled people’s rights have been breached by CVT, and the case is going ahead on April 15 before the Queen’s Bench at the High Court, London.

“Interim relief has also been granted by the judge, and is even more extensive than that of a previous injunction of March 13, as it now covers the co-workers as well as the three villagers – so CVT is prohibited from terminating the residents’ or co-workers’ living arrangements.

“Leave to apply for a judicial review was declined by a single judge, and the residents have the option of renewing the application and have done so.”

Mr Justice Baker’s reasons for refusal were: “In view of the continuing duty of care upon the defendant to supply the complainant’s care needs, it is unarguable that the claimants’ article eight rights are breached by the defendant’s evaluative decision to fulfil that duty by the proposed alteration in the co-worker’s residential arrangements.”